On 10/12/05, Christian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/9/05, Lea de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/12/2005, at 1:20 AM, matt andrews wrote: > > > Hi Lea, I completely agree. Google have somehow developed a blind > > > spot when it comes to meeting even the basics of current web > > > standards. As an exercise, I just threw together a valid version of > > > the Google Search page: > > > > > > blog entry: > > > http://tbp.xomerang.com/?p=18 > > > > > > example page: > > > http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/validGoogle.html > > > > Hey, cool stuff! :) > > I thought about doing that, but decided I didn't have time. > > Interestingly, comparing the two pages in > > http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/ > > shows the original is *slightly* lighter (but I bet you could beat > > that by removing more carriage returns, same as the original) > > Hmmm... the javascript isn't there... I wonder if it would add much > > weight - I wonder if its reused on other pages. > > I don't think the comparision is valid without it. :( > > > > Lea > > Matt's example has more text, which explains the difference... and > imagine if the CSS and JS were in an external file... how often do > people reuse Google throughout the day? If all those users cached the > files, we're talking about drastic reductions in Google's bandwidth. > > It wouldn't be hard at all to lighten the page... but we knew it was a > good idea even before the example.
Quite right - I had started with a heavier version of the page than the default, with Google Desktop, signed in to account, etc., which added a bit of text and Javascript. Now I've done a new version, based on the simpler page that the W3C validator gets back from www.google.com. Invalid (original) page (with just 21 chars added to get a full url for the logo image): http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/invalidGoogle.html (2,654 bytes) Updated valid page, based on the above: http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/validGoogle.html (1,953 bytes) I retained the one-line Javascript in the head, but all styles are in an external CSS file: http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/validGoogle.css (636 bytes) So even for a one-off request, with no cached CSS, the valid version is 2589 bytes - *still* lighter weight than the current invalid version. ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
